On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 23:55 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On 10/5/06, Paul Vriens <Paul.Vriens at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > the email sent by Coverity also asks for a 'main contact'. Do we have
> > such a person already?
>> Not that I know. Are you volunteering?
If nobody steps up, sure.
>> > Can we give them a date when they could recreate the database?
> >
> > Maybe it's good to have a clean start on this. I've found several
> > 'annotations' that just say 'BUG' back in April and nothing else. We
> > should come up with some sort of standard for this, or am I talking
> > rubbish now?
>> I'm ashamed to say I haven't looked. If you have, and the
> annotations don't look worth keeping, then let's just start over.
> So how about this: let's tell them tomorrow morning that it's ok
> to wipe the database on Tuesday.
> That should give anyone interested time to look at
> the annotations and make sure they agree.
> - Dan
>That's fine with me. I haven't looked through all annotations, so there
could be something worthwhile to keep.
On the other hand, several annotations are from April (6 months
development since) and several bugs have been fixed already (but of
course not seen).
What about the fact, that we need some rules/standards for ourselves to
deal with these Coverity reports?
For example, if something is marked as a BUG then I'd expect the person
that marked it, to follow up (either by a patch, by chasing somebody to
look into this, or to create a bugzilla entry). He/she has spent already
some time looking into this so why waste that time.
As soon as the number of defects drops down to a manageable number, the
chasing could even be done by the 'main contact' :-).
Cheers,
Paul.